BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.76 of 2015
Date of Institution : 17.4.2015
Date of decision : 8.5.2017
Sh. Ravi Parkash Jindal Advocate aged 78 years son of Sh. Hans Raj Jindal, Chamber No.118, District Courts, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Wadhwa Mobiles Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa (Hry) through its partner/ representative, Himanshu.
2. Managing Director, Nokia Sales, Industrial Plot No.243, Udhyog Bihar, Phase No.1, Purdhukhera, Gurgaon.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. RAGHBIR SINGH…………………PRESIDENT
SMT.RAJNI GOYAT ………… ……….MEMBER.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased a mobile set Nokia 515 dual sim for an amount of Rs.9500/- from op no.1 against receipt no.45963 dated 8.10.2014 with one year warranty after full assurance given by up no.1 about its quality. However, just after 7-8 days of its purchase, there arose problem in the function of the mobile and its battery used to become off within 6 to 12 hours and also used to remove contacts. Its Whats App system was also found defective. The complainant approached the op no.1 for setting it right but the op no.1 put off the complainant while making lame excuses for four-five times. The complainant also paid Rs.one hundred for lamination of the mobile and Rs.fifty as cost of Whats App system for one month. On 16.3.2015, the mobile set became off and op no.1 on the complaint directed the complainant to approach at Nokia Care Centre, Sirsa. The complainant approached at care centre and delivered the mobile vide receipt no.14663 dated 18.3.2015 but the set was returned to him on next day without repair with the same receipt adding a demand of Rs.800/- and it was also stated that there is no guarantee of such defect in future and for its proper working. The complainant was stunned to know such things from service centre and he also verified from the other dealers of mobiles in the market and was informed that this set Nokia 515 is failed model due to its technical defects and dealers have sold it on half rates suffering losses but the op no.1 cheated the complainant by giving assurance of its proper working knowingly that set is failed one. It is further averred that both the ops failed to provide any service to the complainant at any point of time. Hence, this complaint.
2. Despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. OP no.2 could not be summoned for want of correct address and ultimately op no.2 was given up by complainant.
4. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of job sheet dated 18.3.2015 Ex.C2 and copy of bill Ex.C3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.9500/- as is evident from copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C3. The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. He has also placed on file copy of job sheet dated 18.3.2015 wherein fault as Dead set was reported but despite that mobile was delivered to the complainant without any repair or redressing the grievance of the complainant despite the fact he has spent a huge amount of Rs.9500/- for purchase of mobile set in question. The pleadings as well as evidence of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as op no.1 did not bother to appear before this Forum rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. Even the op no.1 from whom the mobile set in question has been purchased by complainant has failed to tell the correct address of the manufacturer of the mobile in question and therefore, manufacturer of the mobile could not be summoned. The version of the complainant that op no.1 sold the mobile in question to the complainant knowingly that set is failed one and other dealers have sold the same model on half rates is unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, the complainant has been able to prove his case against the opposite party no.1 regarding deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In our considered view, the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the mobile in question as Nokia company has stopped manufacturing the mobiles and if op no.1 is directed to replace the mobile with new one of other company, it can result in further litigation.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e.Rs.9500/- to the complainant and also pay compensation of Rs.2000/- for harassment etc. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.9500/- from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:8.5.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member.
